Should a candidate's sexual orientation ever be a matter for public discussion?

Question

Does your answer change if the person is against same-sex marriage but is, or may be, a closeted homosexual?

Answer 1

I think character matters. In that light, anything relevant to a candidate's character is public fodder.

If there is nothing morally wrong with homosexuality, shouldn't this be a matter for voters to decide?

Answer 2

The only things up for discussion should be a person's policies and leadership abilities. Politicians concentrate too much on "character" and people's private lives because otherwise they know they'll all look and sound the same (seriously - I can't tell the difference between the Republican and Democratic parties any more).

For me, anyone who concentrates on character debates and smear campaigns is just proving that they don't have any policies or original thoughts.

Answer 3

Yes.

We (for now at least) still have a few hints of Christian morality left. Give the socialists and perverts a few more years though, and maybe your gay utopia will come to pass. Look what old robbie redford is passing off as art now - 12 year olds getting raped onscreen, and documentaries on horse-humping. Makes me want to puke.

Funny, when this subject comes up about a republican (i.e. foley), they are run out of town, but when a democrat is discovered running gay brothels (Barney frank) or molesting pages (Gerry Studds) or interns (bubba), they are given awards and honored as brave pioneers of sexual freedom.

Answer 4

no it shouldn't. but it probably will.

You can't vote or not voted based on things like that.

I think of the Will and Grace episode. Female V gay man for office.
Grace set up a party for the female, will the gay male.

the female was a racist
the guy was sounding nice, but turned oput to be a jerk who wanted to put homeless people on a bus and ship them out of the city

you vote on things like that you may end up with a bad person who you feel is the right gender or right sexual orentation- but are not the right person for a job

Answer 5

Yes, as it will directly indicate that candidate's reliability. Before you complain "prejudice," think about the swiftness with which homosexuals change partners, and then think national security.

Answer 6

No, it shouldn't and I don't think it should be a matter for public to discuss. Your sexual preferences shouldn't matter as long that candidate can do his/her job. But unfortunately, for some, they can't see beyond the candidate's sexual orientation, which clouded their judgement when it comes to choosing a candidate for office.

Answer 7

Absolutely not! If they are an excellent individual for candidacy, their record of service and their commitment to the people is what should matter. I think that the media has destroyed far too many lives, and we have probably lost far too many potential candidates. Who would want to run for an election if they knew their private lives would be exposed and open for public ridicule. There are much worse crimes or sins overlooked - and a person's sexual orientation is NO ONE'S business!

Answer 8

Yes, a candidate's moral character is always an issue.

Answer 9

No, orientation shouldn't matter. Now adultery, child exploitation, sexual harassment, hiring a prostitute--things that cross moral and legal boundaries--those are the things that should matter. Funny though, once you get to the white house they don't.

Answer 10

Every aspect of a candidate is open for public discussion. He/she is there to represent the constituants.